I've read Illinois statute on home defense but it's a bunch of legal talk with relative, subjective things (phrases like "reasonably believes"). It also says it's ok if meant to prevent "forcible felony". So first off - what exactly constitutes "forcible felony" ?

Second - what does all this mean in practice. If someone breaks into your house armed with a gun I would assume you can shoot right away. But what if the burglar is armed with just a knife or even unarmed. Specifically if they are unarmed. I assume if you warn them to stay and they stay then that's it, but if they move towards you can you be reasonably safe to shoot at them (even if they are physically weaker and don't seem like they could be a threat in unarmed combat). I guess i m just a bit confused on what the "measuring stick" for cases like these is in the court of law.

If at any point you fear for your life, you are empowered by this state to take measures to protect yourself.
You are not expected to interview the person who has forcibly entered your home to find out what his intentions are.

Or put another way, if you read the papers, you'll be hard pressed to find a lawful resident being charged with a self defense shooting in their home.
Period.

As I understand it (I am not a lawyer and nothing in this post other that "talk to a lawyer" should be considered legal advice);

Examples of "forcible felonies"; murder, attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, home invasion, arson, armed robbery, aggravated assault/battery, etc. The basic underlying principle is the use, or threatened use of force, that is likely to cause great bodily harm or death to yourself or a third party.

"Non forcible felonies"; Felony DUI (although I would argue that a repeat drunk drive is a danger to everyone on the road), tax evasion, grand larceny/theft, drug dealing/running/distribution, owning a NFA regulated weapon/device and not having it registered, etc. The basic underlying principle is that although the crime is a felony, there is not however an immediate danger posed by the act that warrants the use of deadly force.

For specifics, talk to a defense attorney in your area. They will be able to tell you what the current legal enviroment is like regarding these issues where you live. Also, I would suggest that if you ever end up in a self defense shooting, ask for a lawyer right of the bat and then shut up. You might get arrested while everything gets sorted out but most people, after their first shooting, are somewhat emotionally compromised. You want the event relayed to law enforcement the way it actually happened. When stories start to change, police ask "why?". Once a shooting has been called into question, alot of other questions get asked. Having a story that has changed twice, is once too many. Talk to a lawyer, and then, with the lawyer present (preferably after you have had time to get your head on straight), answer questions. It might cost you $1000-2000, but its money well spent if it prevents you from going through a grand jury/trial.

Examples of "forcible felonies"; murder, attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, home invasion, arson, armed robbery, aggravated assault/battery, etc. The basic underlying principle is the use, or threatened use of force, that is likely to cause great bodily harm or death to yourself or a third party.

Examples of "forcible felonies"; murder, attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, home invasion, arson, armed robbery, aggravated assault/battery, etc. The basic underlying principle is the use, or threatened use of force, that is likely to cause great bodily harm or death to yourself or a third party.

And treason. Don't ever forget, treason.

I think that would depend on what exactly is going on. You cannot walk up and shoot someone because they are a traitor. If you see the person actively engaging in treason, that might be different. Keep in mind how serious treason is, it is the ONLY criminal act spelled out in the Constitution, and if you are going to accuse someone of treason, you had better be damned sure of it.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering* to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

*http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhering

The claim of treason gets thrown around far to freely today. People claim that if an Official does something they don't like it's "treason". It might be unpopular, it might even be Unconstitutional, but that does not make it treason.

A forcible felony is defined in the Criminal Code of 1961:"treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement[,] and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

Also, any time you see "reasonably believes" or "reasonable person" that usually means what someone on a JURY will believe.

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012

Cool, sometimes is a bit hard to get sarcasm across over a keyboard... Should have included one of those smiley face thingies...

As for what a person on a Jury will believe... The best advice I have ever heard about choosing a Jury trial over a Bench trial (just general advice, never have needed to ponder going to trial) is, go into a Wal-Mart at 3am and assume that the first 12 people you see will be those on your jury.

Cool, sometimes is a bit hard to get sarcasm across over a keyboard... Should have included one of those smiley face thingies...

As for what a person on a Jury will believe... The best advice I have ever heard about choosing a Jury trial over a Bench trial (just general advice, never have needed to ponder going to trial) is, go into a Wal-Mart at 3am and assume that the first 12 people you see will be those on your jury.

You (in the person of your lawyer) do get to have a little say about who sits on your jury. Rather have the first 12 people in Walmart at 3 a.m. than an Obama appointed liberal judge!!

Tim

Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams

Yes, you do have some say in jury selection, but you only get so many objections. My point was simply that juries are unpredictable. Assuming you have an impartial Judge, I would (possibly) rather have a case argued and decided solely on legal merit, versus the emotions of the Jury.

Granted, each case is different, but emotions are unpredictable. As we all know from some of the cases (McDonald/Heller/etc) getting in front of the right Judge is just as important (if not more) than the Jury.

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if: (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct. (Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

I can't believe Illinois lets its people take the law into their own hands. Just call 9-11 and invite the intruder to sit down for a cup of tea while you wait 10 minutes for the police to arrive.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if: (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct. (Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

Lots of great answers, but where it really gets tricky is those situations where the intruder is ordered to halt, and does not approach and/or attempts to flee. I believe that even if he's got an arm full of your precious possessions, you cannot shot him in the back to prevent his escape and loss of your goods. Even if he did have a weapon - say a knife, and he stabbed a family member on the way out, once he begins to flee, I think the way the laws are worded, you must disengage and let the guy go.

While I know Illinois does have a pretty good doctine, I personally feel there are some gray areas like above that need some tweaking. Imho, once a person commits a forcible felony and harms someone, I feel you should be able to use deadly force to restrain the guy without risk of prosecution. While the loss of property rachets down the urgency of capture, I still believe folks should have a right to protect their property. The way the law is written now, a crook can walk right into an eldery persons home, grab a TV and walk right out without any real legal risk of harm, provided he doesn't approach the owner. Smash and grab is OK, and unless the owner is capable of physically restraining the bad guy by hand, the owner has no recourse and must pray that a cop arrives on time. I don't buy that at all.

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2) Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if: (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct. (Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

Lots of great answers, but where it really gets tricky is those situations where the intruder is ordered to halt, and does not approach and/or attempts to flee. I believe that even if he's got an arm full of your precious possessions, you cannot shot him in the back to prevent his escape and loss of your goods. Even if he did have a weapon - say a knife, and he stabbed a family member on the way out, once he begins to flee, I think the way the laws are worded, you must disengage and let the guy go.

While I know Illinois does have a pretty good doctine, I personally feel there are some gray areas like above that need some tweaking. Imho, once a person commits a forcible felony and harms someone, I feel you should be able to use deadly force to restrain the guy without risk of prosecution. While the loss of property rachets down the urgency of capture, I still believe folks should have a right to protect their property. The way the law is written now, a crook can walk right into an eldery persons home, grab a TV and walk right out without any real legal risk of harm, provided he doesn't approach the owner. Smash and grab is OK, and unless the owner is capable of physically restraining the bad guy by hand, the owner has no recourse and must pray that a cop arrives on time. I don't buy that at all.

Five words to keep repeating: 'I feared for my life". Especially elderly people in their own home. The perp doesn't have to be armed. The victims are old, the perp is younger. Look at the damage done to Mary Shephard with the perps bare hands and shod feet. No, a person coming into a home, uninvited, asked to leave and stealing possessions would be fair game. As someone has said earlier, I don't believe there's a case of a homeowner being convicted of a crime when defending their home against a real threat.

JMHO, IANAL,Tim

Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams

Lots of great answers, but where it really gets tricky is those situations where the intruder is ordered to halt, and does not approach and/or attempts to flee. I believe that even if he's got an arm full of your precious possessions, you cannot shot him in the back to prevent his escape and loss of your goods. Even if he did have a weapon - say a knife, and he stabbed a family member on the way out, once he begins to flee, I think the way the laws are worded, you must disengage and let the guy go.

While I know Illinois does have a pretty good doctine, I personally feel there are some gray areas like above that need some tweaking. Imho, once a person commits a forcible felony and harms someone, I feel you should be able to use deadly force to restrain the guy without risk of prosecution. While the loss of property rachets down the urgency of capture, I still believe folks should have a right to protect their property. The way the law is written now, a crook can walk right into an eldery persons home, grab a TV and walk right out without any real legal risk of harm, provided he doesn't approach the owner. Smash and grab is OK, and unless the owner is capable of physically restraining the bad guy by hand, the owner has no recourse and must pray that a cop arrives on time. I don't buy that at all.

Five words to keep repeating: 'I feared for my life". Especially elderly people in their own home. The perp doesn't have to be armed. The victims are old, the perp is younger. Look at the damage done to Mary Shephard with the perps bare hands and shod feet. No, a person coming into a home, uninvited, asked to leave and stealing possessions would be fair game. As someone has said earlier, I don't believe there's a case of a homeowner being convicted of a crime when defending their home against a real threat.

JMHO, IANAL,Tim

The problem is, by the time the startled homeowner secures the weapon, the bad guy can have his back to the homeowner with the TV in hand walking out the door. While I'm totally on your side with the feeling that 'I feared for my life' should be a perminent response in all cases, the point is, no matter what, the guy can be dancing around your living room on the way out with whatever he wants - even after harming you or lved one, and as long as he has his back to you before you shoot, you cannot shoot. Something's wrong there. I'm simply saying that there should be some exemption from presecution for using deadly force even if the guy is trying to flee.

If an intruder halts or flees when you give an order then your mission is complete! The point is to stop the threat any way you can. If he flees, even with an armful of your goods, then that is a plus. The very last thing I would want to do is take a life. Even if material possessions were made off with. As long as my family and I were safe is all that matters. Why do people concern themselves with killing intruders when all you need is to eliminate the threat any way possible? If by shouting command makes the bad guy flee, then you have potentially saved yourself and your family from serious trauma and possibly legal bills. I would not want my wife and kids to be put the trauma of seeing me or knowing that I have killed someone unless it was absolutely neccessary! Don't get me wrong, I will give ONE command right before there are muzzleflashes. Or if there is no possiblilty of being verbal well then it is what it is!

If an intruder halts or flees when you give an order then your mission is complete! The point is to stop the threat any way you can. If he flees, even with an armful of your goods, then that is a plus. The very last thing I would want to do is take a life. Even if material possessions were made off with. As long as my family and I were safe is all that matters. Why do people concern themselves with killing intruders when all you need is to eliminate the threat any way possible? If by shouting command makes the bad guy flee, then you have potentially saved yourself and your family from serious trauma and possibly legal bills. I would not want my wife and kids to be put the trauma of seeing me or knowing that I have killed someone unless it was absolutely neccessary! Don't get me wrong, I will give ONE command right before there are muzzleflashes. Or if there is no possiblilty of being verbal well then it is what it is!

+1It's not like the cops are going to clean up the resulting bloody mess

Five words to keep repeating: 'I feared for my life". Especially elderly people in their own home. The perp doesn't have to be armed. The victims are old, the perp is younger. Look at the damage done to Mary Shephard with the perps bare hands and shod feet. No, a person coming into a home, uninvited, asked to leave and stealing possessions would be fair game. As someone has said earlier, I don't believe there's a case of a homeowner being convicted of a crime when defending their home against a real threat.

JMHO, IANAL,Tim

The problem is, by the time the startled homeowner secures the weapon, the bad guy can have his back to the homeowner with the TV in hand walking out the door. While I'm totally on your side with the feeling that 'I feared for my life' should be a perminent response in all cases, the point is, no matter what, the guy can be dancing around your living room on the way out with whatever he wants - even after harming you or lved one, and as long as he has his back to you before you shoot, you cannot shoot. Something's wrong there. I'm simply saying that there should be some exemption from presecution for using deadly force even if the guy is trying to flee.

The law says "to prevent a felony". He's still in the house, still committing the felony, still a threat if he puts down the TV and takes the three steps to get to you. Now, running out and shooting him 100 yards from your house while he's running down the street, I might agree with you. But if he's in my house against my wishes and trying to get out the door with my stuff and still a potential threat to me, I'm going to use any means at hand to stop him. Completely stop him.

Again, JMHO, IANAL,Tim

Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."--Samuel Adams

I have a pistol on me at all times (while in the house or out in the yard ). If a criminal kicks in my door , he won't have much time to decide if he wants to "stay" or leave quicker than he got there.

You at one end of the house and your gun at the other end doesn't do you much good.

Five words to keep repeating: 'I feared for my life". Especially elderly people in their own home. The perp doesn't have to be armed. The victims are old, the perp is younger. Look at the damage done to Mary Shephard with the perps bare hands and shod feet. No, a person coming into a home, uninvited, asked to leave and stealing possessions would be fair game. As someone has said earlier, I don't believe there's a case of a homeowner being convicted of a crime when defending their home against a real threat.

JMHO, IANAL,Tim

The problem is, by the time the startled homeowner secures the weapon, the bad guy can have his back to the homeowner with the TV in hand walking out the door. While I'm totally on your side with the feeling that 'I feared for my life' should be a perminent response in all cases, the point is, no matter what, the guy can be dancing around your living room on the way out with whatever he wants - even after harming you or lved one, and as long as he has his back to you before you shoot, you cannot shoot. Something's wrong there. I'm simply saying that there should be some exemption from presecution for using deadly force even if the guy is trying to flee.

The law says "to prevent a felony". He's still in the house, still committing the felony, still a threat if he puts down the TV and takes the three steps to get to you. Now, running out and shooting him 100 yards from your house while he's running down the street, I might agree with you. But if he's in my house against my wishes and trying to get out the door with my stuff and still a potential threat to me, I'm going to use any means at hand to stop him. Completely stop him.

Again, JMHO, IANAL,Tim

I agree, but you can see the variance in responses. Taking property is one thing, but after harming a loved one makes it even tougher to disengage. The way the laws are written, the instant the guy turns and stops approaching or fleeing, no matter where or what he's done, even murder, you must disengage. While certainly the level of his crime prior will set a backdrop in the event of a prosecution of the home owner, I simply believe that once a guy forcibly enters, and is a clear threat of ANY kind, it's open season while your remain on your property. Meaning, you cannot chase him down the street, but anything short, you are in the clear.

I'm merely saying that there are a few gray areas that need to be tightened up. As you read some of these Ayoob files, it really gets upsetting to see some of these liberal prosecutors and judges throwing the book at honest folks. Even if they do eventually get off, most of these poor folks are financially ruined. This shouldn't happen, and it's about time the rights of the good guys are given a little more consideration.

I have a pistol on me at all times (while in the house or out in the yard ). If a criminal kicks in my door , he won't have much time to decide if he wants to "stay" or leave quicker than he got there.

You at one end of the house and your gun at the other end doesn't do you much good.

Good practice for when HB148 goes through. I like wearing mine around the house while cooking and cleaning!

I have a pistol on me at all times (while in the house or out in the yard ). If a criminal kicks in my door , he won't have much time to decide if he wants to "stay" or leave quicker than he got there.

You at one end of the house and your gun at the other end doesn't do you much good.

Good practice for when HB148 goes through. I like wearing mine around the house while cooking and cleaning!

This is why I would probably never issue an order to halt, in my mind I would illuminate the target(at night) with my tactical flashlight for positive ID then open fire. Under Illinois law if they are in my home I am reasonable in assuming they are at least there to commit a Felony, if not a forcible Felony so I am justified under the law in using that force. After reading quite a bit on the subject; saying "halt" or trying to otherwise hold a suspect seems to complicate things; usually not in the gun owners favor. "Waiting" for compliance from an intruder in your home is just asking for disaster.